DOJ Settlement EXPOSES Biden’s Alleged Censorship Tactics

April 11, 2026

Close-up view of the U.S. Department of Justice website through a magnifying glass

The Department of Justice has settled landmark lawsuits that expose how the Biden administration allegedly coerced social media companies into censoring American citizens, marking a decisive victory for First Amendment protections.

Story Highlights

DOJ settlement implements Trump’s Executive Order barring federal agencies from pressuring social media platforms for 10 years
Lawsuit originated in 2022 when Missouri and Louisiana challenged Biden administration’s alleged coercion of tech companies to suppress COVID-19 content and conservative viewpoints
Consent decree prohibits CDC, CISA, and Surgeon General from threatening platforms with regulation or vetoing content moderation decisions
Republican state attorneys general hail settlement as “historic” restraint on what they call the “federal censorship machine”

Settlement Imposes Decade-Long Restrictions on Federal Agencies

The Department of Justice announced settlements in Missouri v. Biden and Children’s Health Defense v. Biden, implementing a 10-year consent decree that prohibits specific federal agencies from coercing social media platforms. The agreement bars the CDC, CISA, and the Surgeon General’s office from threatening platforms with regulatory action or exercising veto power over content moderation decisions. While government officials retain authority to flag criminal activity and genuine national security threats, they cannot use coercive pressure to influence what Americans see online. The settlement directly implements President Trump’s January 2025 Executive Order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.”

Four-Year Legal Battle Exposes Government Overreach

Missouri and Louisiana filed the original lawsuit in 2022, alleging Biden administration officials systematically pressured social media companies to suppress disfavored speech on COVID-19, elections, and conservative political viewpoints. In 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana found the government likely caused deplatforming of Americans through its coordinated pressure campaign. The case reached the Supreme Court as Murthy v. Missouri, where justices vacated lower court injunctions on procedural standing grounds without ruling on the constitutional merits. This left the underlying allegations of First Amendment violations unresolved until the Trump administration’s DOJ pursued settlement rather than continued litigation.

Red State Attorneys General Celebrate Free Speech Victory

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill called the settlement “simply historic,” stating it establishes precedent that government coercion of private platforms violates constitutional protections. Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway declared her state “will NOT allow politicians to police speech,” emphasizing the importance of state sovereignty in protecting citizens’ rights. Senator Eric Schmitt, who initiated the lawsuit as Missouri’s attorney general, proclaimed “the deep state just got checked,” describing the consent decree as the first real operational restraint on what he characterized as a federal censorship apparatus. Attorney General Pamela Bondi emphasized the settlement represents key steps in undoing abuses perpetrated against conservative media and American citizens during the previous administration.

Implications for Government-Tech Platform Relations

The settlement establishes clear boundaries for future government interactions with social media companies while preserving legitimate law enforcement and national security communications. Federal agencies may still flag content and express disagreement with platform policies, but cannot threaten regulatory consequences or demand content removal through coercive tactics. This framework provides tech companies greater autonomy in content moderation decisions without fear of government retaliation, while protecting Americans’ constitutional right to free expression online. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represented plaintiffs in related litigation, characterized the agreement as a major blow against government social media censorship that will benefit all Americans regardless of political affiliation.

DOJ Reaches Settlement in Landmark Case Over Biden-Era Government Censorship of Americans https://t.co/2x6geIyvGE

— 🌺🌿kam🌿🌺 (@pjkate) April 11, 2026

The settlement addresses growing bipartisan concerns about unchecked government power over digital speech. While the consent decree acknowledges prior administration pressure on platforms without admitting legal wrongdoing, it imposes enforceable constraints that many Americans across the political spectrum view as necessary safeguards against future government overreach. For conservatives who experienced deplatforming or suppression of their viewpoints on COVID-19 policies, election integrity questions, and traditional values, the agreement represents vindication after years of what they perceived as coordinated silencing by government-influenced tech giants. The 10-year duration ensures these protections extend well beyond any single administration.